Chowaniec v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chowaniec v. Morgan

262 A.D.2d 1001, 691 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7194

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The testimony of defendant that he did nothing with respect to the operation of his vehicle when he first observed the oncoming third-party defendant’s vehicle making a left turn in front of him raises an issue of fact whether defendant exercised reasonable care to avoid a collision (cf., Wasserman v Wong, 181 AD2d 672). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The testimony of defendant that he did nothing with respect to the operation of his vehicle when he first observed the oncoming third-party defendant’s vehicle making a left turn in front of him raises an issue of fact whether defendant exercised reasonable care to avoid a collision (cf., Wasserman v Wong, 181 AD2d 672). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Chowaniec v. Morgan, 262 A.D.2d 1001, 691 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 1001 (Chowaniec v. Morgan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related